DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.454/2014
Sh. Ajay Singh
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o 266/D Ward No.2 Mehrauli
New Delhi-110030 ….Complainant
Versus
1. NEO 17th (Dealer)
G.F. 17, PVR Complex, Saket,
New Delhi-110017
2. TVS Electronics Ltd. (Service Centre)
C-102, First Floor, Ansal Plaza,
New Delhi-110049
3. HTC India Pvt. Ltd.
G-4, BPTP Park Centre
Sector-30 Near NH-8
Gurgaon-122001 ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 27.11.14 Date of Order : 07.06.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he had purchased a HTC Desire 816 (Dark Grey) mobile for an amount of Rs.25,300/- from OP No.1 with one year warranty manufactured by OP No.3 and he had made the payment through credit card vide bill dated 09.07.2014. But within few days of its purchase the mobile started giving problem such as auto restart etc and so in the month of September, 2014 the mobile stopped working suddenly and he had visited the OP No.2 for redressal of the problem. The OP No.2 had stated that there is a moisture in the handset and the defect could not be removed and gave an estimate of Rs.15,000/- for removing the defect, even though the phone was within the warranty. He told the OP No.2 that he will not pay anything as the mobile was under warranty period. The OP No.2 stated that they will not repair the handset unless he made the payment. The OP No.2 did not also return the handset despite repeated requests and the handset is still lying with OP No.2. Therefore, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OPs to replace the mobile phone with new one alongwith one year warranty or in the alternative to refund the price of the handset i.e. Rs.25,300/- alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of its purchase i.e. 09.07.2014.
- Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for causing harassment, inconvenience and mental agony to the Complainant.
- Direct the OPs to pay further sum of Rs.15,000/- as cost of the litigation.
Sh. Anurag Rana AR of OP No.3 attended the proceedings on 20.04.15 and Sh. Mayan Rana Adv. for OP No.3 attended the proceedings on 13.07.15. He was given copies of the complaint and accompanying documents. Thereafter OPs have been proceeded exparte vide order dated 16.10.2015.
Complainant has filed his affidavit in exparte evidence.
We have heard the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
In view of the above it transpires that the OPs have the knowledge about the filing of the complaint but have not chosen to contest it. The The Complainant filed a retail invoice dated 09.07.14 for Rs.25,300/- as a mobile cost (copy Annexure A-1). Annexure-2 relates to service report issued by the OP No.2 (copy Annexure A-2).
Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the Complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is a no reason to disbelieve the versions of the Complainant.
In view of the above, we hold the OP No.2 & 3 are guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct OP No.3 (Manufacturing Company) to refund the amount of Rs.25,300/- alognwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization. OP No.3 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant for harassment and mental agony undergone by the Complainant including the cost of the litigation.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member President
Announced on 07.06.16
